Johnson v. Golden Empire Transit District et al

Filing 55

ORDER to the PARTIES to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Failure to Comply with the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/21/2016. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LATOYA JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
GOLDEN EMPIRE TRANSIT DISTRICT
and TODDASH KIM,

15
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01841 - JLT
ORDER TO THE PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED
FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
COURT’S ORDER

16
17

Previously, the Court was notified that “[t]he entire case has been settled.” (Doc. 53)

18

Accordingly, the Court directed the parties to file a stipulated request for dismissal no later than

19

November 18, 2016. (Doc. 54) The parties were informed that “failure to comply with this order may

20

result in the Court imposing sanctions, including the dismissal of the action.” (Id. at 1, emphasis

21

omitted.) To date, the parties have failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s order.

22

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a

23

party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any

24

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have

25

inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions

26

including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

27

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute

28

an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v.
1

1

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order);

2

Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with

3

a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to

4

prosecute and to comply with local rules).

5

Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of

6

service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed or monetary sanctions imposed for their

7

failure comply with the Court’s order or to file a stipulated request for dismissal.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 21, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2